Principal knowingly allows false trespassing charges to be filed.

[Silverplum]

Please provide information about what circumstances put the burden of proof on the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Also, how would a defendant "prove" he did not trespass when there is no evidence that he did and no date provided that this alleged trespassing occurred?

We are talking about the judicial system in the US where a person in innocent until PROVEN guilty, right?

Your Point of Rage is that you had to pay an attorney, correct? And now you want your attorney fees back, correct?

Not gonna happen. You don't get your money back if you're "innocent," or "not guilty," or if the charges are dropped. That's simply not how it works.

We can't provide legal info for an instance that is not in existence.

 

[jojajn]

Why do you think the school is at fault? You said the chief of police conducted an investigation. How is this the school district's fault?

Because the the principal sat in on the questioning of my son and would have heard that my son did not make the alleged confession, yet this principal gave the final okay to press charges anyway.

 

[jojajn]

You hit a bullseye on this one. Mom/Dad is whack

I am out of here. This forum consists of trolls!

 

[Antigone*]

Because the the principal sat in on the questioning of my son and would have heard that my son did not make the alleged confession, yet this principal gave the final okay to press charges anyway.

Obviously the principal believed that your son was involved.

 

[jojajn]

Your Point of Rage is that you had to pay an attorney, correct? And now you want your attorney fees back, correct?

Not gonna happen. You don't get your money back if you're "innocent," or "not guilty," or if the charges are dropped. That's simply not how it works.

We can't provide legal info for an instance that is not in existence.

Apparently you are a retired machine operator or something.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Because the the principal sat in on the questioning of my son and would have heard that my son did not make the alleged confession, yet this principal gave the final okay to press charges anyway.

Really? And you can prove this, how?

Seriously, you would have to sue the city or the chief of police, and you won't get very far with that.

 

[jojajn]

Obviously the principal believed that your son was involved.

Based on what when there is no evidence?

No one here has even the basic knowledge of our legal system. Total waste of time!

 

[Silverplum]

Apparently you are a retired machine operator or something.

I guess that makes you feel better.

Oh, and you kept on going. Nice!

I am out of here. This forum consists of trolls!

Because the the principal sat in on the questioning of my son and would have heard that my son did not make the alleged confession, yet this principal gave the final okay to press charges anyway.

This one below is MY personal favorite, because it our OP himself has no basic knowledge of our legal system...as in, WHO presses charges?

Based on what when there is no evidence?

No one here has even the basic knowledge of our legal system. Total waste of time!

 

[Antigone*]

Apparently you are a retired machine operator or something.

Dear Lord,

I ask you today to put an arm around SP's shoulder and a hand over her mouth. Thank you and Amen.

SP, come over to the bar and drinks will be on me. This one is not worth it.

 

[jojajn]

Really? And you can prove this, how?

Seriously, you would have to sue the city or the chief of police, and you won't get very far with that.

Based on the police report that states the results of the investigation were given to the principal and the school wanted the charges to happen.

 

[Antigone*]

Based on what when there is no evidence?

No one here has even the basic knowledge of our legal system. Total waste of time!

Arguing logic with those who hold ignorance as a badge of honor rarely does any good.

~ Tigi out

 

[jojajn]

THAT was hysterical!!

I'm there!

You two can entertain yourselves by trolling some other topic now. Have fun.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Based on the police report that states the results of the investigation were given to the principal and the school wanted the charges to happen.

Okay, well go ahead and try. It's not going to happen.

The school didn't charge your son with trespassing, arrest him, or put him on trial. They may have accused him, but they didn't charge him. They don't have that power. The police conducted an investigation and apparently it was believed that there was enough evidence against him.

But go ahead and give it shot. Call your lawyer in the morning. Good luck.

 

[Silverplum]

Okay, well go ahead and try. It's not going to happen.

The school didn't charge your son with trespassing, arrest him, or put him on trial. They may have accused him, but they didn't charge him. They don't have that power. The police conducted an investigation and apparently it was believed that there was enough evidence against him.

But go ahead and give it shot. Call your lawyer in the morning. Good luck.

Oooh, knowledge of how our legal system works! Great job, Father -- not that it's any surprise You know all things.

 

[tranquility]

From the lack of relevant answers, it appears as though mom wants to whine about something rather than find out her child's legal rights, so I'm done. Odds are the suit was with probable cause to believe the OP's child did the crime, so there is no malicious prosecution. Civil rights violation would require damages because of the breach. Here there were none.

"But, what of the lawyer fees?" says the OP.

Those are not damages from not reading Miranda, they are damages from the surrounding facts including the inculpatory statements made by the child. The state was found in violation of Miranda rights so it could not use the statements.

That in no way forces them to forget the statements in forming their opinion that the OP's son did the crime.

Notice I did not ask or care if the OP's son did any related crime. It really doesn't matter.